Method 1. uses IVF in vitro fertilization, then when embryo consists of about 8 cells remove one and check sex. Implant one with desired sex and destroy others

Method 2. does not use IVF, it uses a flourescent dye which is preferentially absorbed by chromosomes, of which GIRL SPERM have more bulk, and so they GLOW more. So you can sort the sperm out----they show an electrostatic method. And then fertilization is IN UTERO.

cool.

Method 2. is less expensive and probably less uncomfortable for the woman. the few percent more bulk comes from the X being bigger than the Y. so more dye. so more glow.

I don't see anything wrong with letting couples choose. If they get into arguments about it that's their problem.

Some of the advertizing for the new "MicroSort" technology (fluorescent dye, laser illumination, telltale pinkish glow from the girl sperm) is icky. But so what if it is icky? Also I think the labs are overcharging people.

But I think couples should be able to choose, and not be hassled, if they want to.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) today announced recommendations to Government that sex selection techniques involving sperm sorting should be regulated in the UK, and that the current policy of only allowing sex selection to avoid serious sex-linked disorders should continue.

“We have found this a difficult issue. It has taken us over a year to reach conclusions because of their far-reaching nature. But it is clear that most people are against sex selection for social reasons. The HFEA has to balance the potential benefit of any technique against the potential harm. We are not persuaded that the likely benefits of permitting sex selection for social reasons are strong enough to outweigh the possible harm that might be done.”

HFEA (draft)
Review of SEX SELECTION:OPTIONS FOR REGULATIONSociety’s views on the new techniques were divided between pride in the
technological achievement, pleasure at the new-found means to relieve,
at least for some, the unhappiness of infertility, and unease at the
apparently uncontrolled advance of science, bringing with it new
possibilities for manipulating the early stages of human development.2

25. This research identified few recent general population surveys of
attitudes specifically towards sex selection. Research carried out in the
USA in the 1970s and 1980s found that married couples with university
education showed little desire to control the sex of the first child but a
strong desire to influence the sex of their second to achieve a sex balance
in the family. Whilst they opposed, in general, the use of termination of
pregnancy as a method of achieving this balance, a significant proportion
said they would use a reliable preconception method. More recent
studies in the UK showed no significant overall preference for one sex
over the other although a disproportionately high percentage of those
actively seeking sex selection were from ethnic populations originating
outside Europe; amongst these there was a marked preference for male
children although this was from families who already had more than one
female child and were nearing the end of their reproductive lives. These
findings did not support the belief that permitting controlled sex selection for non-medical reasons would lead to a skewing of the sex ratio in the
UK.

27. Cross-cultural studies identified use of new reproductive technologies for
sex selection in newly industrialising countries, predominantly to favour
of male offspring, although there was little evidence relating to whether
traditional preferences for sons were retained after immigration to Britain
or other European countries.

28. The most strongly argued ethical case against the use of medically
assisted sex selection found in the literature related to its perceived
complicity with sexism and discrimination against women, although
there were few attempts to argue that there was a likelihood of sex
selection skewing the sex balance in Western societies since the preference
here was generally for families with children of both sexes. Other
commonly used arguments against sex selection were that it represented
a ‘slippery slope’ and that it would divert scarce medical resources away
from medical uses.

Reasons for sex selection - prevent sex-linked diseases, family-balancing, preference for one sex or the other.

Seems like the first is legitimate (but who knows what repurcussions that would hold), the second is unnecessary but harmless (or so it seems), and the third is unnecessary but poses ethical problems.

It also poses a religious problem for Muslims:

The debate also provided a context in which Muslim participants in
particular explored the conflict between their cultural and religious
perspectives, between the pressure to have male offspring and the belief
that all children, whether male, female, healthy or disabled were a gift
from Allah. However in the end the latter of these positions tended to
hold sway and they therefore rejected sex selection on the basis that it
constituted interference with this divine gift.

And the technique is seen as invasive and an overall degradation of the human by most of the people against it.

This is a quick scan of the reports, but that seems like the rub. I do see the point that those opposed to this make - the position we take on this (and it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other) reflects our attitudes towards a whole range social aspects, ie gender, status, kinship, and our religious/cosmological views. The idea of family-balancing seems to fall under some sort of social ideology, which may be reinforced and popularized if we allow this (I'm not trying to be alarmist here, just exploring the possiblities). If we just allow it for medical reasons, that also has something to say about how we think technology and science should function in society - right now it helps us gain more and more "control" (as we define it) over our lives and our surroundings. Allowing for sex selection reinforces the idea that we should be able to control such things.

Personally, I think this obsession with control is not beneficial, but I do think that it isn't a completely black and white issue. Obviously I think the ability to save lives and live more securely is good; but I think we're overdoing it in some ways. I also think that we already have enough choices, and that having more doesn't necessarily make you happier or healthier (there was an article on the dilemma of choice somewhere). Here's the attitude in the US that holds all of what I am saying:

"These are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices. We cherish that in the United States," said Jeffrey Steinberg, director of the Fertility Institutes, which offers the service at clinics in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. "These people are really happy when they get what they want. These are heartwarming stories." from the 2nd post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62067-2004Dec13.html

The US is esp concerned with choice, control, and appearing happy. Is that not why the attitudes and laws are different?